Jeep_Dog

I recognize this thinly veiled attempt to promote angst on this topic.

Friend, I agree with your point of view on this. Completely. However, I will not be "damned," on a crusade, or holier-than-thou in hunting down "cheaters." My opinion is that attitude is taking it too far. I am quite dilligent in stopping by my caches and checking their condition and logs. I'm probably more dilligent than most cache owners in this area, since I tend to make my rounds about once a week. Indeed, it is for this reason that I've "capped" myself on a low number of caches, so that I can maintain their quality. I believe in taking the time to recon an area, carefully choose the cache location, and make it fun and appropriate. If I find what is a "false claim," I address the issue; I ask nicely to please remove the log. I'll allow some time for a reclamas, and in the absence of a good explanation, would delete the log. Yet, if things got "ugly," then I'd let it go, since to keep the sport friendly, I would rather "let it go" than continue my crusade of spreading my particular caching morals.

LOL. Lately, I have utilized neither a PDA or a cache page print out. This method has been relatively stress-free, and makes caching a bit more fun! I mentioned it on a couple of logged finds this week, like on this fun puzzle multi and on this fun micro cache. Now, I do not plan on continuing the practice of not taking along some form of cache page (PDA or paper) indefinately, but I have enjoyed it enough to form the opinion the PDAless and Paperless method is certainly woth giving a try. I still use the LOC files to upload my GPSr, though. I HATE nugging in waypoints on the GPSr...

Let it go, it's just a false "find" in a sport where the numbers do not matter.

Could be Poplar. Often easily confused as a hardwood. Attributes seem along the lines, but as afore mentioned, photos would be nice. Get a shot of the grain, too...

Congratulations! Two microcachers will slow down the numbers on a cache run, but definately a lot more fun! (Sister-in-Law is pregnant with triplets. First try. Wife took a notion to perhaps going for third, I mentioned at our ages it could easily turn into 4 or 5, notion gone *poof*)

Geocaching: The Story of Modern Day 49ers. Geocaching: Trojan Treasure Hunting Geocaching: Seeking Treasure Among Chaparral and Urban Spawl Geocaching: I Wish They All Could Be California Caches Geocaching: Fun, Fun, Fun 'till Their Daddy Took the GPSr Away

Dritzz, also get on a local forum/disscussion and ask if anyone else had any problems over the same time period. Back in January I had a really bad day of caching, where I couldn't find squat, got frustrated, cut myself badly on barbed wire, et al. I find out from a cache owner I shouldn't have been anywhere near a barbed wire. Hmmmm. That got me thinking. Well, after talking with folks, EVERYONE in this area had problems that weekend, and everyone was batting around 50% finds. Weird sunspot activity or something was causing erratic GPSr behavior.

Yes, normal in all your questions. Don't throw lil' yellow off a cliff. That would be very bad. Give it away or something. Heck, put it in the "emergency" box in the back of your vehicle. If you should purchase a more expensive model with "better" accuracy, say a Vista, you will find the basic etrex was just as accurate. The only GPSr I've seen out there that is prevalent in stores, etc, was a really worthless Cobra model someone I knew purchased. The best entertainment that unit could provide was the satisfaction of watching it being chucked off a cliff. After 45 minutes, the best it could muster for reception was 2 satellites. They took it back to the store, got a basic etrex, and were up and running quickly with happy faces from finding caches.

Answering your question simply: "yes". Link here on a Getting Started thread when someone with a Legend experienced difficulties. Good to read in case you have problems. I use the less powerful Venture with similar features as the Legend. I was up and running, and happily loading waypoints from GC.com in a matter of 2 minutes.

(cough cough) The "rules": 1. Take something from the cache 2. Leave something in the cache 3. Write about it in the logbook Now, I log every find and DNF. In fact, I even note follow-on visits for each cache I'm at (a warm fuzzy to the owner, for example, on a cache that's been quiet a while, and someone who's found it reports all is ok). I personally believe that's the courteous thing to do. However, I do not begrudge folks who haven't completed online logs. I've got friends and family that do not, and they range from not having a computer to not feeling comfortable about the web-based log. So be it, I'm certainly not going to discourage them from continuing the sport.

My experience on DNFs for a 1 difficulty has been to two reasons: 1) Cache was muggled and was not there; 2) Difficulty should actually have been set at 2.5 or 3, not a 1. Reason #2 seems to be quite prevalent and a lot of times seems dependent upon geographical region (groupthink of cache difficulty interpretation). I've got a couple of caches that are in the 2-2.5 area difficulty. Had an email from one out of towner telling me "hey, this should be a 3 to 4, it was a toughie!", and email from a local stating it was an easy find, I should bump it to a 1. Think I'll leave it right at a 2.

Official policy at this link discusses "there is currently a moratorium on locationless caches. No caches will be posted until functionality is available to better serve this unique category. "

I would note that in the case of this listing, the application of your statement would have resulted in the cache not being listed. I believe the flexibility of the guidelines (and inconsistency) worked in this cache's favor. Right-o. My points in that post were moot (was thinking out loud on that posting, and random/creative thinking does not always lend to a logical argument), hence my edit of the post stating such. I am very aware of what worked in favor of that cache, and am quite appreciative of GC's reclamas procedures, hence the "GC has a reclamas precedure in place, and that is the most we could hope for" statement. Ack, I'm getting verbose. Before I get banned , your note was duly noted and I heartily agree. GC's flexibility in keeping to intent and/or spirit of the sport as opposed to "rules" is very evident in this case. Nothing but a happy cacher here on this end.... EDIT: Took out Jeremy flames. Just kidding, poor grammar edit...

It really doesn't matter if you are on the ISS, in orbit, on the moon, heading for Mars, or whatever. Remember, the GPSr is designed to determine a position on Earth based upon reference points provided by the satellites. The GPSr will attempt to fix it's position in relation to a point on Earth by lat/long, mgrs, whatever, system of geographical fix reference. So, let's assume we all manage somehow get the billionaire to get a GPSr into orbit, and let's assume the GPSr is receiving signals from, oh, 11 satellites just fine. See where I'm going with this? Go to your "speed" function, and prepare for a shock, since you'll probably be traveling 1000s of miles per hour in relation to the earth (which you are!). Your current "position" will be updating quicker than you can read it. If you match the speed of the earth's rotation, then you will get the location on the face of the earth that you are directly over. Your relative speed will be zero. The only good data you could probably get is your altitude, assuming your GPSr can provide a readout of that many digits. If I remember correctly, the ISS is not in a stationary orbit. So, hiding a cache on the ISS won't do you any good when push the mark button, any more than it would to do you any good to "map" a cruise ship while it is under steam. All assumptions aside, I'm not sure my trusty Garmin could compute that quickly, and would probably shut itself off until I demonstrated a little more common sense.

Yes, that sums up the discussion very well. In this case, the cache was approved, but my response on this topic would have been the same even if it was not. Exceptions and common sense is applied through the approval system. The system is not perfect, but none is, so some deserving caches could get denied. GC has a reclamas precedure in place, and that is the most we could hope for. One could argue that the process for submitting an exception isn't exactly clear, so some folks may give up and/or get frustrated at the first denial, but then again, that's what the forums certainly fill this information gap nicely.

I had a horse named "Bob." Unfortunately, I had to sell him, and now he resides in Michigan. I think I will get "Bob" to maintain for me a nice little micro hidden in a pile of horse crap .

It certainly would be easier if the maintainer was another geocacher, and even more easier if they were listed on the cache page. This is best left for reviewers to answer. But I'll give an opinion anyhow. There is still the cache owner, 1300 miles away or not. One could email the cache owner, who would then have the "maintainer" look into the issues. I see no problem with having neither the maintainer be a geocacher nor be listed on the page. It probably is important this information be required to give to the approver.

LOL. I've been pondering this problem, septic. However, it is my wife's birthday this week, and she's watching the cache transactions pretty closely to ascertain her gift(s). So, my problem lies in the fact I'd be in a pool of deep doo-doo if I got hydee chocolates when the frau didn't get any. Still working out the details, however. Regardless of the outcome of the cache, hydee may get her chocolates...

Or, perhaps, the OP could volunteer through said emails to maintain the caches. The OP would save money in purchasing cache containers whilst increasing the number of caches in their area all at the same time.

I appreciate your advice. Yet, I fail to see how or why I am "ahead." I'm working the cache through the appropriate channels, and this thread was not intended as a "flank attack" on the reviewer. I did not start this discussion to gather votes for the cache one way or the other. I was attempting to get discussion going on how, at times, the guidelines could prove counterproductive and prevent what they were intended to enforce, and how different cache types and placement may impact each other and the sport. To me, these are worthwhile issues to address as the sport grows. Hemlock believes the distance should be increased, if anything. I would agree on 99% of the available areas out there. Yet, any "hard" number on distance is and could be a hinderance. I suppose this is why they are "guidelines." Some newer folks are learning something from this particlar cache's case, based upon email received. Isn't that what really counts?

Apparently it is happening. First, it became OK to do this for virtuals. Oops, one hole in the dam. Next, the standard slips to OK for physicals that are placed in a region that has little or no caches... on and on until we are flooded with caches owned by folks hundreds or thousands of miles away. A pseudo-parallel discussion on this topic is unfolding here. Ah, our reviewers are good folks, and I'm sure this will all get rectified, especially since you just brought it to light.

Hmmm. I've been mulling this over quite a bit. I personally do not have a problem with this. Then again, I don't personally have a problem with placing a physical cache within .10 straight line distance of a virtual either. In my case, if the approver is sticking so dadgum close to the "guidelines" when it comes to placing a cache near a virtual, then shouldn't the approver then stick close to "Placing caches on vacation or outside of your normal caching area is unacceptable and these caches may not be listed" ? I don't mind judgement on our caches, for it is a necessary evil. I believe we should and can expect at least consistency in the intrepretation and application of guidelines. Edit: mtn-man has already pointed out the grandfather issue. My argument is moot.

Poison Ivy vines glued to cache container to cammo it up.

I agree fully, and that is exactly why I haven't asked for SBA. It is a fine virtual, I logged it and said a nice thing about it, so I'm certainly not interested in getting archived just so I can place a traditional cache nearby. Another poster suggested I email the virt owner, which I did, and gave several suggestions, one of which is to create an offset cache out of both. No response yet, after a bit of time... A virtual is more or less easy to maintain (other than ensuring some target info does not change, get moved, et cetera), and maintenance from a distance isn't the problem in my view. My whine hovers around the concept that perhaps someone that far away is "out of the scene" so to speak with local cache developments, trends, and the community. If it was maintained by a local, it would be easier to catch up with them during an event or such, and discuss face-to-face. No, mtn-man, I won't whine about your virtual 100 miles away. I don't plan on getting to know and befriend museum owners that far from home.